I have had 3 debates, arguing over such important topics such as Batman's physical prowess, racial advantages during the apocalypse, and, of course, the Powerful Cosmic Llama of Power. I am now going to try my hand at politics.

Gay marriage should be legal.

"Advance towards me, brethren!"---I'm pretty sure George Washington said that during the Revolutionary War.

For some time now, this has been a debate I've had a rash to get involved in as well. I'm glad I finally found one to accept, notwithstanding being on the opposite side of what I had hoped and that I had planned to have a bit more debating experience on DDO before having such a debate. However, this topic will be more than sufficient to satisfy me, so I thank you for starting this debate.

Now, I'm very aware that few have ever won this debate on my side, making it extremely difficult for me, but that's part of the reason I accepted. For my first few arguments, I'll be very cliché with things I'm sure you've heard already, things I'm sure you've already got a reply for I find them to be weak arguments myself. However, I will still make my best attempt to keep this debate interesting.

Obligation of the Highest Order

We are the People, and we must, as a whole, be consensual as the governed. If we strongly dislike something the government does, we retaliate. For instance, when MegaUpload was taken down, we did something.[1]

So, the most common political idea is the obligation that they hold themselves to, correct? As you said, there are "a lot of people who want gay marriage legal" and we should get it for this reason. The majority. We'll ignore the two-thirds rule as it doesn't apply to us.

Now, that means that if the majority of the people want less laws and less government control[2], we'd be obstructing the foundation of Democracy to defy it. 54% want a smaller government. That's more people than the amount of people supporting gay marriage.

The government, the people of the highest order, need to step down a smidge, and that does not mean enforcing extra rulings for us Commoners and laymen. That does not mean adding more laws, whether they involve matrimony and human relationships or our economic contributions.

In other words, there shouldn't be laws resembling:

"If you're in a certain state that is deemed to have a strong, natural incentive (marriage), it is necessary to have an incentive created through a law such as this one stating that insurance is cheaper when you're married." In this way, it becomes unnatural as people may search for this in a superficial fashion.

"Nobody is more deserving of care than those deemed in a state provoked from a natural incentive, and will therefore be logged for being in such a state."

So, being that Americans don't want legal matters involved in marriage at all, it's unfair to say that we ought to let these matters interfere with the marriage of homosexuals as well.

The Interest of the State

So, maybe you're not an Individualist. Maybe you're a Statist.

How does gay marriage benefit the state? If your potential for having children rises, the state is interested. It helps the statistics. The state knows what to expect.

It does not help to know that two people, who have an extremely low chance of creating a child, are emotionally bonded. It's nice. It's not necessary.

They can't account for every single emotional bond ever. Even Facebook can't do that. "Friends? Single? Open? Complicated!?!?"

So, whether you're a Democrat or Republican, whether you're an Individualist Anarchist or an Authoritarian Statist, it appears intuitive that this is not a sound legislature. The People have spoken and they don't want it. The State has Spoken and they don't want it.

So, instead of trying to label everyone as something just so you can make something beautiful simple, let's just enjoy it for what it is.

I tried my best, and I certainly hope my opponent will put as much effort into his next round as I did with mine. Thank you.

I would like to steal one of you quotes: "We are the People, and we must, as a whole, be consensual as the governed. If we strongly dislike something the government does, we retaliate." I love this quote! It is something I whole-heartedly agree with.However, this must also be true with society in general. People are tired of Gays not having the same legal status of straights, and so they are doing things.

To counter your arguements: "So, being that Americans don't want legal matters involved in marriage at all, it's unfair to say that we ought to let these matters interfere with the marriage of homosexuals as well."

It doesn't really matter if the People wish marriage to be separate from the government because the majority may not even matter here. If 59% wished to take away all welfare, social secuity, and Medicare/Medicaid, this could not be done because, if it were, anyone relying on these programs would be dead in a month. The same thing would happen if insurance benifits for marryed couples were revoked because people rely on the Marriage Benifit Programs (MBP).

If we were to look at Gay Marriage, its legalization DOES NOT harm anyone. Revoking Government Marriage Insurance Benifits does, and so we must keep Gov. and Marriage together, and then there are also no reasons why Gays shouldn't be treated the same as Straights.

Your next argument: If your potential for having children rises, the state is interested. It helps the statistics.

You are right that the state is interested in child creation, but this is not the point of marriage itself. Fertility should not be a factor as the infertile can Marry.

It does not help to know that (gays),who have an extremely low chance of creating a child, are emotionally bonded.

I'm aware that the delay it took for me to occupy this round was rather excessive. The side I've agreed to take in this debate is, admittedly, even more difficult than I had already anticipated preceding my acceptance.

As this is the first round more open to rebutting, that's how I'll mainly form this round.

The Predecompartmentalizationing of the Rebuttal

Upon reading the rebuttal to my argument by my opponent, I saw that the points made were very valid. However, after reading it several times, perhaps enough to make me review my life choices, I decided that the subtle itch, the nagging irk, the tiny cringe from my opponent's argument existed for this reason: My opponent's argument was very segmented.

Divided.

Everything my opponent said seemed to work against the individual points I made rather well. However, following the rebutting of all my points, my opponent also managed to, consequently, create a new argument from the combined rebuttal points.

As such, I've decided to put together the points my opponent's made, rather intentionally or not, to form a single argument.

"People are tired of Gays not having the same legal status of straights, and so they are doing things." This assertion by my argument was a result of me saying that the majority of the United States is not in favor of laws, and we should listen to what the People want. Here, my opponent says that the People want gay marriage as a legal right, as it's wanted by "53%" and people are acting in favor of it, and that's a very valid point.

My opponent then says "the majority may not even matter," however to leave it in context, Pro's saying that the majority's will must be ignored given that the net result of the majority's wishes may be deleterious. My opponent offers a hypothetical example, one that's actually rather realistic: "If 59% wished to take away all welfare, social secuity, and Medicare/Medicaid, this could not be done because, if it were, anyone relying on these programs would be dead in a month." Assuming this is true, this example highlights the sound reasoning behind exceptions to Democracy in which the People must be dismissed.

I'll refer to the rest later.

Declaring Dissention of a Deconstructed Decompartmentalizationing

Now, with all the points stated, it's easy to see how they all fit together.

First, the People want legalized gay marriage, not only by the notion of the majority, but also by the notion of activity.

Once, however, it's put into regard the following point that the majority's will can, at times, not matter, then a part of the first point is cancelled out. Meaning, it's simply revised to: the People want legalized gay marriage by notion of activity.

However, it's worthy to note a passive lot of the people. The silent majority.

The concept of the silent majority is that the passive are those that have taken a side where activity would go against their side, so it seems like the majority is the side with activity, which would be the side where activity doesn't go against their side. This being considered, it's not very reliable to simply create laws and legalizations based on perceived, subjective weight of the sides as opposed to an objective amount measured through votes or something of the sort.

In other words, I strongly disagree that the majority doesn't always matter. If there is a point where the majority doesn't matter, I wonder where that point is located. My opponent, as I've discussed before, makes the Consequentialism argument.

If, in the end, we don't relinquish certain things despite the majority's will to do so, it can be justified if the relinquishment of those things would cause more deleterious results than simply ignoring the majority.

One could also argue that we should allow the United States Government, the Highest Order who's only obligation is only to their own justifiable results, to commit genocide of a large portion of Americans as well as the world. In the end, it would solve our issue with resources and overpopulation. Given that the murder is systematic, it would also work much like natural selection.

The People wouldn't want that. I imagine, though this may be jumping to conclusions, that the majority would not have a very strong desire to be herded and murdered through the masses, nearly defenseless.[citation needed]

I too, in fact, would probably not like it if someone invaded my home and slit my throat in slow motion, blood splurting everywhere while You Are My Sunshine by Anne Murray played in the background, followed by me collapsing into the murderer's arms, creating a dissonant Pieta...

Well, I'll actually concede that that might actually be really bada*s, but it is rather irrelevant to the point. Ignoring the majority due to the activity of the People without any measurement, or dismissing it due to what the Government deems is best for the layman, is most definitely not wise.

The majority does matter. In this nation, the United States of America, it must always matter. When a contradiction within our beliefs is created, then the stronger of the contradiction must prevail.

Sifted Statist Subjects

I believe this will be that most difficult section to rebut.

The chances of procreation from a same-sex couple. "Extremely low chances? Wow. How about no chance. lol." For whatever reason, I like to think that "no chance" is an extremely low chance. If it's high, I retract my statement. Notwithstanding what I say here, this is a negligible point. :)

Those seem to provide very strong evidence that same sex marriage supports the state. And to be quite frank, I'm having trouble seeing myself being able to find any counter argument in the remaining time. I'm willing to concede on this one point. In a Statist view, for the benefit of the Government and State, gay marriage seems intuitively helpful.

To go back to your brilliant statement: "We are the People, and we must, as a whole, be consensual as the governed. If we strongly dislike something the government does, we retaliate."

I love this quote! It is something I whole-heartedly agree with. However, this must be true for society in general.

This is also true for the Silent Majority. They should take action while giving good reasons to keep Gay Marriage illegal and become the Active Majority. They should make their own name instead of letting the Westboro Baptist Church become the largest opposition to gay marriage.

Do not think that I believe that the ends justify the means. If they do, then what justifies the end?

My belief is that, if no harm comes from an action, and a majority (or possibly even less than a majority) asks for this action, then that action should be taken.Take my original statement: there is no reason against such legalization (of gay marriage).Everyone would argue that there is some problems with genocide, with several reasons that could be supported.

There are no supported reasons why Gay Marriage should be illegal.

One could also argue that we should allow the United States Government, the Highest Order who's only obligation is only to their own justifiable results, to commit genocide of a large portion of Americans as well as the world. In the end, it would solve our issue with resources and overpopulation. Given that the murder is systematic, it would also work much like natural selection.

That would be an epic action movie! I would watch it, especially if Arnold Schwarzenegger starred in it.

Take my original statement: there is no reason against such legalization (of gay marriage).

Everyone would argue that there is some problems with genocide, with several reasons that could be supported.

There are no supported reasons why Gay Marriage should be illegal.

I too, in fact, would probably not like it if someone invaded my home and slit my throat in slow motion, blood splurting everywhere while You Are My Sunshine by Anne Murrayplayed in the background, followed by me collapsing into the murderer's arms, creating a dissonant Pieta...

You should be a novelist; you have so many good ideas... Albeit morbid ideas...

I will have nightmares tonight. These nightmares will probably consist of Genocide, slow-motion-blood-splurting, the elderly dying without welfare, and ponies... Always with ponies...

When a contradiction within our beliefs is created, then the stronger of the contradiction must prevail.

It seems as if the Active Contradiction (gay marriage) is stronger, and therefore must prevail._____________________________________________________________________________________A Day of Death after Declaring Dissension of a Deconstructed Decompartmentalizationingbased on the premise be Mr. (the) Dark MuffinOver the stove I worked, the seventies in the background. The serenity of my empty house thrilled my very soul. The darkness in the corner was deep, though, and, out of the corner of my eye, it would seem to me to be moving. I would turn my head to the eternal darkness, and it would be motionless.

Paranoia swept over me, it's darkness being a unique one that was more malevolent than the darkness in front of me. For it is true, friend, that imaginary evil is just as, if not more so, darker than real evil. For eons I stared into the darkness.

The record slowed for some reason, Anne Murray's, voice distorted into demonic raving, and, though I didn't know the language it spoke, it was saying one thing to me: someone's in the house.

"Who's there?" I asked into the darkness, but my tone would suggest I was looking for peace rather than an answer. The darkness moved in response. I reached beside me for the knife set on the counter. I lifted it, the blade against the metal tray creating an audible sharpness.

My senses were heightened, and the closing of my six-year-old's door made me jump as if the door were the gates of Satan's domain opening. The darkness in front of me took shape: the shape of a monster. It was eight feet tall, its eyes glowing red, it claw was a combat-knife ready for action. I screamed, and thrusted my knife. The thing moved with military efficiency, seemingly teleporting inches from my face. I didn't know what happened, except that my throat bled, and I hit the ground.

"Mom!" my son cried, his voice shaking. A tear ran down my face because I was unable to save him."I have rights!" he shouted, as if this would stop the marauder's crusade.

The attacker made a sound, something between a chuckle and a growl, but, whatever the sound was, it conveyed a darkness blacker than night.

I hear my son screaming, yelling, and crying in agony. I tried to mumble something to comfort him even though I was across the room. I tried to sooth him with promises of a Heaven that we would inhabit, though I didn't believe in a god. I tried to say anything to give him a happy death.

I... I tried to tell him I loved him. I mumbled some incoherent gibberish.I tried again. All that came out was air.He had to know. I had to tell him one last time.I tried once more."I love you," I said this in as loud as I could, which was loud enough. It was. It HAD to be.

My son took no notice; he couldn't even hear me.

His screaming took an abrupt halt, and I heard his corpse hit the ground.

I closed my eyes, letting darkness overtake me. I let it surround me. I let it bathe me. I let it consume me.

This darkness was merciful, though. It gave me the promise of never seeing light again. I would be dead. Always. I hope.

It's clear at this point that there's not much room for optimism when it comes to winning this debate for me. Nonetheless, I have found a couple things to rebut in your argument. Quite honestly, however, they're more paralogies than anything. Notwithstanding that, I've taken it upon myself to argue this side of the debate and will carry forth with the self-assigned duty.

Punctual Paralogy

My opponent declares that I misinterpreted his argument. If no harm is to come, and many want it, then let it be. There is harm in genocide. Thusly, there is a reason against genocide. However, "there is no reason against such legalization (of gay marriage)."Fifty three percent.

But with my emphasis on the majority being made, whether Active or Silent, as well as my statement that "When a contradiction within our beliefs is created, then the stronger of the contradiction must prevail," we should remember that Fifty four percent don't want anymore laws at all. I made this argument before, and my opponent asserted that the majority may not matter as reducing the amount of laws, or keeping them the way they are, could be harmful. Being that we both agree that the rights should be the same for both homosexuals and otherwise, it would mean reducing laws.

This implies that my opponent is saying that privatizing marriage would cause more harm than good. The majority want privatized marriage. So, at this point, it seems like my job is to refute the harms of privatizing marriage, to make it seem as harmless as gay marriage, meaning it would be preferable as more people want it.

Wikipedia's listed some flaws.[1] However, I'll merely be focusing on the ones with citations. Robert George argues (it's worthy to note that he's against private and gay marriage) that marriage is "profound" and should therefore be monitored by the state.[2] To go further, he asserts that marriage should be between a "husband and wife" to teach people their "rightful place in society." I think it's safe to say that as he's against both sides of this debate, that neither of us can agree that this is a sound reason against privatization.

That's the only source cited that works and is on the internet, so the rest will be what Wikipedia claims they said.

Richard Mohler says privatizing marriage would disallow the government's ruling of an ethical marriage, while we, as the People, would be unethical due to the fact that the "markets do not always encourage or support moral behavior." We're incapable of being ethical without the government, and therefore must be regulated. This is ignoring the majority again, even though the majority is not causing harm. This isn't genocide. This is just wanting to have loving relationships with a single partner in matrimony of their own terms.

There is no good reason against simply not making marriage a part of the legal system altogether. My opponent wants equal rights for homosexuals and otherwise in terms of marriage. My side offers that. My opponent wants the People to get what they want. My side offers that. My opponent likes to write stories, apparently. I enjoyed that.

Finally, it seems that, to keep things fair in general, this has become more an argument of privatizing marriage. Gay marriage shouldn't be legalized to equalize things as a conventional, heterosexual marriage shouldn't be interfered with through the legal system to begin with.

It's also worth noting that my side is easier to accomplish. To create equal rights for all marriage, we can make every kind of marriage legal with its own set of rules: Straight marriage; Gay marriage; Polygamous marriage; Interspecies marriage. Things could get hectic.

My side simply removes one system. The regulation of the only type of marriage that's managed to be legalized.

Also, due to the lack of time, I won't be able to revise and edit. That will be an explanation for any glaring mistakes in my citing and such.